1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 270,359,065, KRW 3,000,000, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B and C, respectively; and (b) on November 20, 2013.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) E is a Fsi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 2:50 on November 20, 2013.

2) The Plaintiff’s bicycle riding part of the Plaintiff’s bicycle riding part, which was directed from the H building’s room to the I apartment protection area, was the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s bicycle riding part was the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

2) The Plaintiff A sustained an injury, such as an injury due to the instant accident.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, Party A’s evidence 1 through 6, 9, 16, and Party B’s evidence 2 and 3 (including each number, the same shall apply hereinafter

each statement, the result of the request for physical examination of the Director of the J Hospital, the Director of the K Hospital, and the Director of the L Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, a mutual aid business entity, is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident, as the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

C. Limit of liability, however, the driver of a vehicle who intends to enter an intersection where the traffic control is not performed by considering the following circumstances as a whole in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, 9, 16, and 2 and 3, and the driver of a vehicle who intends to enter the intersection where the traffic control is not performed, shall slowly take place when the width of the intersection is wider than that of the road where the vehicle is passing, and when there are other vehicles which intend to enter the intersection where the width is wider than that of the road where the vehicle is passing, the driver shall yield the course to the vehicle (see Article 26(2) of the Road Traffic Act). The plaintiff did not yield the course to the defendant's vehicle driving on the road with a wide width, and the plaintiff first entered the intersection of the plaintiff in light of the speed of bicycles and the location of collision